Gluster users - Nov 2016 - Improving IOPS

2016-11-05 12:06 GMT+01:00 Lindsay Mathieson <lindsay.mathieson at
gmail.com>:
> Yah, I get that. For me willing to risk loosing the entire gluster node and
> having to resync it, I see the odds as pretty low vs just losing one disk
in
> the RAID10 set and resilvering it locally.
I don't see any advantage doing a single RAIDz10, only drawbacks.
With multiple RAIDZ1 you get the same space, same features and same
performances as a single RAIDZ10 but much more availability and safety
for your data.

On 5/11/2016 9:20 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> I don't see any advantage doing a single RAIDz10, only drawbacks.
> With multiple RAIDZ1 you get the same space, same features and same
> performances as a single RAIDZ10 but much more availability and safety
> for your data.
Better local IOPS, better use of ZIl and SLOG. Lower memory requirements.

-- 
Lindsay Mathieson

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <
gandalf.corvotempesta at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-11-05 12:06 GMT+01:00 Lindsay Mathieson <lindsay.mathieson at
gmail.com
> >:
> > Yah, I get that. For me willing to risk loosing the entire gluster
node
> and
> > having to resync it, I see the odds as pretty low vs just losing one
> disk in
> > the RAID10 set and resilvering it locally.
>
> I don't see any advantage doing a single RAIDz10, only drawbacks.
> With multiple RAIDZ1 you get the same space, same features and same
> performances as a single RAIDZ10 but much more availability and safety
> for your data.
>
The only thing you gain with raidz1 I think is maybe more usable space.
Performance in general will not be as good, and whether the vdev is
mirrored or z1 neither can survive 2 drives failing.  In most cases the z10
will rebuild faster with less impact during rebuild. If you are already
using gluster 3 node replicate as VM practices suggest then you are already
pretty well protected if you lose the wrong 2 drives as well.

_______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20161105/9c9fc2b4/attachment.html>